I agree, Antti said it well. Shall we offer virtual beer (or is there any Vodka left?) to Leo too? Here you are...
Well, anyway I have to answer to Leo.
LeoAU wrote:And by posting this I too want to finish my participation in this thread. Because it comes to the point where some of my arguments are ignored, and to keep it going I would have to repeat them and whatever I will say will not be taken seriously simply because Finland was right and could not have done anything bad.
Have you ever thought, Leo, that maybe some of your arguments are not quite true or are biased? I admit that there are always two sides in a coin but I consider Finnish sources much more reliable than Soviet sources. There are so many examples. Even the recent mutual research has proved and supported Finnish data and facts. We will see, but I believe that also in Russia many past Soviet myths will change in history books.
LeoAU wrote:That reminds me very much of the communist education system when they tried to bring us up in the way that USSR was a peaceful country, and all USSR did was right and good. Well, they failed, I know USSR was just a powerful country and would use this power whenever and wherever needed. But Finnish education system obviously succeded.
Power is a bad thing in wrong hands and Stalin used that power. But he was not Russian. It is true that all good was not only in USSR but all bad was neither in Finland.
Our education system meets any standards to be objective enough. Maybe you would be surprised if you saw what is/was said in Finnish history books. I never saw there any fundamental nationalistic or revisionistic, just pure facts. I'd say that our society succeeded better because we have also room for (self-)critisism and objectivity.
LeoAU wrote:It is a very difficult part of WW2 to understand. Well, as I stated before here or in some other forums, Winter war isn't concidered to be a part of WW2 by many historians. It was a war between just two countries. And Continuation war had a slightly different nature - well, continuation of the first one.
It does not matter anything if Winter War was part of WW II or not. The point is anyway that it was an essential part in the chain of battles or independent wars which eventually led to the world war. There were many other battles too in the 1930's which are not counted either being part of WW II. If we say WW II started on 1.9.1939 then Winter War was part of it.
I think the names Winter War and Continuation War are truthful and neutral enough. Because Great Patriotic War was also against Finns you see that "our" Contination War can't be separated from war against Germany and Axis nations. We separate these wars. That's the difference.
LeoAU wrote:It wasn't fear and right for USSR to attack Finland in 39. I admit that. If Finland cooperated with USSR maybe it would've stayed independant and out of the war and without loss of land. We never know.
In 41 it was Finland who was an agressor. It grabbed(robbed) Soviet lands, it participated in the attack against USSR together with Germany and axis, and took its part (call it minimal or insignificant) in the siege of Leningrad. This time it was more than a war between two countries, unlike Winter war. And for that it payed with reparations.
We tried our best but co-operation with Stalin and Molotov wasn't easy. Our best diplomat J. K. Paasikivi, who was strangely very respected by Soviets, worked really hard in Moscow to keep the balance. I suggest you should read his diaries which are published at least in Swedish and English. Then you'd realize many things much better from our point of view.
We stayed independent all the time but were under hard pressure. If you don't know that pressure continued almost until the end of Soviet Union. We knew what was the goal of USSR already in 1938 when the first mutual negotiations took place. Soviet diplomat called Yartsev set the first demands then. It is not fair to state that our lost lands would be some kind of reparation because we would most likely lost these territories or our whole independence anyway. We know it because that happened to Baltic States gradually in 1939 and 1940.
LeoAU wrote:Yes, you can stay the way you are - hate Russia, try to humiliate it in these forums, 'wait' for the right moment to get the lands back - but it would be no different to 41 position - agression. And you would lose again.
I wouldn't say hate, dislike is a better word. This is partly because some of our values are not the same. We have seen this during this - hopefully gone - argue too. Partly it is due to our different religions (atheism is a kind of religion too) but argues between Orthodox Church of Finland and Russia indicate that there is something else too.
"Humiliate"? What humiliation there has been?
According to the diaries of President U. K. Kekkonen he tried to get at least part of Finnish Karelia and Viipuri back in the 1960's but he failed because men changed in Moscow and all had to be started from the very beginnig again.
LeoAU wrote:I don't like when people knowing little to nothing about Russian history or Russians try to downgrade them, insult them. Chauvinism is bad is Finninsh chauvinism is no better. And I see a clear demonstration of this in this forum.
I don't like either when someone who knows little about Finnish history of Finns try to downgrade or insult us. I think we Finns know Russian history much better than most people in the world. We have seen all next to Russia/Soviet Union. Believe me or not but there is no "Finnish Chauvinism" - but there is Russian Chauvinism.
LeoAU wrote:Just a thought, please don't start arguing with this. Ok, lets assume in 39 Stalin wanted to occupy Finland. He failed, Finland lost land but stayed independant. In 41 Finns wanted their lands back, they failed. They lost even more lands, yet it is Soviets that 'lost' twice. That is not fair.
I don't argue, I'm calm as always. That is not the whole truth in this case like I have said earlier. Who gave Soviet Union that right to take our lands in 1940 and 1944? USA, Britain or Germany? I think it was Stalin all alone. He was very cunning in twisting history and using lies. All just fit perfectly to his plans.
Leo, winning a war does not mean you get some land. Winning a war means that you achieve your original aims. The aim of Soviet Union was to conquer Finland (or make it Soviet Finland). That plan failed twice. Of course we can say that Soviet Union wan these wars but we Finns really feel/felt that we are/were actually winners too. According to novel Unknow Soldier by V. Linna: "Great and mighty Soviet Union wan but small and persistent Finland came second." I think that's well said.
LeoAU wrote:Any way. If there is no major objectives I will try to retire from this thread.
I disagree with the way some people talked about Soviets and Russians in this forum but I do thank participants for keeping it civil and clean.
have a good weekend
OK. I apology if there was such talk. Anyway much of it was my typical sarcasm. I have always tried to keep these discussions clean and civilized.
Thanks, same to you. Well, summer cottage calls...